NewsGuard question about your claim linking COVID-19 vaccinations to excess deaths
Aborted fact-check or something else?
Here is a brief email exchange I had with a “health editor” at NewsGuard.
And then… crickets… unless I missed it?
Maybe it’s just taking longer than usual?
Also, is their actual purpose to fact-check, or is their purpose to send me a message?
If so, what is the message?
16 Jun 2023, 12:20 / John Gregory to Denis Rancourt
Mr. Rancourt,
My name is John Gregory, health editor at NewsGuard. We report on and track online misinformation.
I had a question about your recent comments to the National Citizens Inquiry into Canada's Response to COVID-19. As reported by the Western Standard, you said "We're still quantifying, but the numbers are going to fall between about 10,000 and 35,000 deaths that are directly induced by the vaccine in Canada."
Your comments did not appear to mention that excess deaths data nclude deaths from all causes -- including car accidents and COVID-19 itself -- or that Health Canada has confirmed only four deaths due to COVID-19 vaccine side effects, or mention any of the peer-reviewed medical evidence which concluded that COVID-19 vaccines are safe, such as:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00054-8/fulltext
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2110475
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext
https://www.thelancet.com/article/S1473-3099(22)00426-1/fulltext
Similar narratives linking excess mortality to COVID vaccines have been advanced in other countries and addressed by fact-checking news organizations. Here are some examples:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-covid-vaccine-600000-americans-978248674052
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/scicheck-no-evidence-excess-deaths-linked-to-vaccines-contrary-to-claims-online/
https://fullfact.org/health/bbc-malhotra-vaccines-excess-deaths/
Here are my questions:
Is there a reason why your testimony did not mention this countervailing information?
Do you have any background in medicine that would qualify you to determine the causes of tens of thousands of excess deaths?
Your comments continually refer to "correlations" between excess deaths and vaccination rollout -- but isn't it true that correlation does not equal causation?
--
Best regards,
John Gregory
john.gregory@newsguardtech.com
Office: (312) 489-8676
More about NewsGuard criteria here.
16 Jun 2023, 17:36 / Denis Rancourt to John Gregory
Hi John,
Thank you for your email.
The context of my words "We're still quantifying, but the numbers are going to fall between about 10,000 and 35,000 deaths that are directly induced by the vaccine in Canada" is my actual testimony and exhibits presented on May 17, 2023 at the NCI in Ottawa:
My analyses are presented in some detail therein, as is my relevant scientific background.
The NCI has published my CV on its website.
My 894-page Book of Exhibits for my NCI testimony is available here:
https://archive.org/details/boe-expert-witness-denis-rancourt-nci-ce-nc
It is possible that a journalist such as yourself does not have a sufficient technical and scientific background to evaluate the actual analyses, but I leave that up to you.
Given the above, your three specific questions are palpably disingenuous.
For example, you cite four studies, but you fail to mention the obvious conflicts of interest:
Rosenblum et al. (2022): Study entirely funded by the CDC.
Barda et al. (2021): The authors have held and hold research contracts with Pfizer and other Pharma.
Voysey et al. (2021): Study funded by Gates Foundation, Astra Zeneca, etc.
Sadarangani et al. (2022): Study funded by PHACanada. The authors have held and hold research grants from Pfizer, etc.
You are batting 1000.
You may wish to read this:
Ioannidis (2016) "Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked", Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 73, 82-86
https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)00147-5/fulltext
Your approach and your uncritical reliance on these sources gives some merit to the analysis of NewsGuard made in 2019 by investigative journalist Whitney Webb:
Sincerely,
DR
Denis Rancourt, PhD
https://denisrancourt.ca/
Co-Director, CORRELATION Research in the Public Interest (correlation-canada.org)
Great job Denis. I had an almost identical experience with a fact checker. The public needs to see what goes on behind the scenes with these so-called fact-checkers. They can consume a lot of time and energy and when real experts engage them it results in nothing that the public can see. Of course, the right thing to do would be for them to publish the fact check with a 'proven correct' statement. The main strategy they use is to give insufficient time to respond and then they judge you to be guilty of spreading information based on a non-response. Although it might seem a bit trivial and I am not one to wield titles, a fact-checker addressing you as "Mr. Rancourt" is almost certainly a sign of disrespect. If they have done any homework, they know you hold a PhD. This, alongside the statement "We report on and track online misinformation" shows how profound the bias is before even entering a conversation. I think something like "We investigate online information in an attempt to discern whether it is based on primary scientific evidence" would be a more objective mission and useful statement.
Good response!